I'm confused by how to use exported variables with coffeescript meteor packages.
[edit] concrete example.
I followed various advice and have a JS file _defines.js
//defines.js
Ribot = {}
Then
# server.coffee
Meteor.startup ->
Ribot = new Bot()
Meteor.methods botReply: (obj) ->
reply = Ribot.reply("user", obj.text)
so the problem is that the Ribot object within the startup block is not available inside the meteor methods block.
When i write similar code with javascript:
Meteor.startup( function() {
Ribot = new Bot();
Meteor.methods({
botReply: function(obj) {
reply = Ribot.reply("user", obj.text)
things work fine.
the current hack to get around is define everything to hang off a share.Ribot as per meteor's coffeescript support.
So for step one I don't actually need to export the Ribot object outside the package since most of the interface is currently via Meteor.methods, however I will need to eventually.
details below
There are more complicated suggestions, but I found that what works in a package is the opposite of normal CS app development.
eg:
Rbot = {} # no # on declaration
Meteor.startup ->
#RBot = new Thing() # use # in references
console.log("new Rbot", #RBot)
and then in package.js
api.export(['RBot']);
it's now available to the app.
However, in normal coffeescript usage from within my app (not a package) the opposite is true. For example
# use # when declaring
#SceneData = new Meteor.Collection("SceneData")
Meteor.startup ->
if Meteor.isServer
Meteor.publish "SceneData", (query, fields) ->
# dont use # when referencing
return SceneData.find(query, fields)
This also seems different than how normal coffeescript works outside of meteor (see ex below).
Within the app i think this is maybe because meteor is calling methods with a "this" object the same as the top level window? So there's another layer of "magic" going on?
Whereas within a package Meteor is wrapping more closures than coffeescript itself.
If someone can suggest the "right" way to do this, or explain why these two opposite wrapping/#ref styles are needed in the same framework, that'd be enlightening.
compiler example:
#outer = "outer"
inner = "inner"
p1 = () ->
console.log #outer # wont run
console.log(outer)
p2 = () ->
console.log inner
console.log #inner
p3 = () =>
console.log #outer
console.log(outer)
p1()
p2()
p3()
// compiles to:
(function() {
var inner, p1, p2, p3;
this.outer = "outer";
inner = "inner";
p1 = function() {
console.log(this.outer);
return console.log(outer);
};
p2 = function() {
console.log(inner);
return console.log(this.inner);
};
p3 = (function(_this) {
return function() {
console.log(_this.outer);
return console.log(outer);
};
})(this);
p1();
p2();
p3();
}).call(this);
If you write #myVariable = value in a package, you don't need to export myVariable since there's no package variable named myVariable, because you have instead attached it as a new property to the global object. However, you should avoid doing this, since packages shouldn't modify the global object, but exporting some of its package variables instead.
However, package variables must be defined as global variables (in JavaScript: myVariable = value (and not var myVariable = value), and the downside is that there's no equivalent statement in CoffeeScript (in CoffeeScript myVariable = value compiles to var myVariable = value, which creates a file scoped variable). To solve this, the meteor folks introduced the shared variable (containing an object), and the idea is that package scoped variable should be assigned as properties to this object. Read more about it in the docs for CoffeeScript in Meteor.
Related
I'm writing this question after 2 days of total struggling during which I couldn't find a solution but also couldn't find an explanation of why this code is not working.
I will report a super simplified simulation of my code.
I have 5 Node.js files:
1) server.js -> Is the main file used to start the server
2) globalVars.js -> Is where all the server "global" objects are stored.
3) globalFunctions.js -> Is where all "general" functions are stored to be used by all other modules
4) helloManager.js -> Example file which contains some standard function used by the server
5) aspect.js -> Same as helloManager.js
//server.js
//Loading the globalVars file. All objects are passed by reference so I use this to store the global variables
var globalVars = require("./globalVars.js");
//Assigning to the respective global object all the functions exported from other modules
globalVars.Modules.globalFunctions = require("./globalFunctions.js");
globalVars.Modules.aspect = require("./aspect.js");
globalVars.Modules.helloManager = require("./helloManager.js");
//After this point, the objects in globalVars.js will be populated with the respective functions exported from the files
//A timeout just to be sure it is not a problem of timing? (Well, it is not...)
setTimeout(function(){
console.log(globalVars.Modules.helloManager.helloOutput());
}, 2000);
/*
Console will throw the following error:
../globalFunctions.js:6
return "MR. " + aspect.getAspect();
^
TypeError: aspect.getAspect is not a function
*/
//globalVars.js
//Objects that will be populated with the functions inside other modules
module.exports.Modules = {
aspect: {},
helloManager: {},
globalFunctions: {}
};
//helloManager.js
var globalVars = require("./globalVars.js");
var { globalFunctions } = globalVars.Modules;
module.exports.helloOutput = function(){
return "hello " + globalFunctions.getHumanData();
};
//aspect.js
module.exports.getAspect = function(){
return "human";
};
//globalFunctions.js
var globalVars = require("./globalVars.js");
var { aspect } = globalVars.Modules;
module.exports.getHumanData = function(){
return "MR. " + aspect.getAspect();
};
Please don't answer me to put everything in the same file, because my code is way more complicated to report so here I'm posting this very simple simulation.
I know that objects are assigned by reference and so if all modules get the variables from "globalVars" they works kinda like "global".
The problem is when in globalFunctions.js I load
var { aspect } = globalVars.Modules;
Since in server.js the module aspect.js is not loaded yet, it will be an empty object.
But I'm expecting that
var { aspect } = globalVars.Modules;
is getting the reference of globalVars and not a copy, so when server.js finishes loading all the modules, the variabile aspect inside globalVars.Modules will point to the correct object and so it would find the function I need!
Infact the console.log inside server.js is executed after all modules have been loaded for this exact reason.
Does anyone know what is the reason of this problem and how could I solve it?
Thank to everyone who will help!
What's happening
It's an issue of what it means to do const { aspect } = globalVars.Modules; (which is the same as const aspect = globalVars.Modules.aspect;). That is, it's a matter of assignment semantics.
Let's look at a simpler example, then we can see hot it applies to what you're doing. Assume you have:
let a = {/*original object*/};
When you do
b = a;
the value in a is copied into b. That value is an object reference, so they now both point to the same object, but there is no ongoing link between a and b. If you then do
a = {/*new object*/};
that has no effect whatsoever on b, because there's no ongoing link between a (the variable) and b (the variable). b still refers to the original object, not the new one.
The same is true of any assignable item, such as an object property or parameter. That's what's happening with globalVars.Modules.aspect. globalFunctions is grabbing the value (simple assignment semantics, though using destructuring), then server.js is replacing that value with a new one.
Here's how that's happening in your code:
// server.js
var globalVars = (function() {
// globalVars.js
return { // this is the `exports` object
Modules: {
aspect: {}, // *** That's the `a = {/*original object*/}`
}
};
})();
// back in server.js
globalVars.Modules.globalFunctions = (function() {
// globalFunctions.js
const { aspect } = globalVars.Modules; // **** That's the `b = a`
return { // this is the `exports` object
getHumanData: function(){
return "MR. " + aspect.getAspect();
}
};
})();
// back in server.js
globalVars.Modules.aspect = (function() { // *** that's the `a = {/*new object*/}
return { // this is the `exports` object
getAspect: function(){
return "human";
}
};
})();
// back in server.js
globalVars.Modules.globalFunctions.getHumanData(); // Fails because the object it's using
// is the old one, not the new one
How to fix it
globalFunctions.js relies on aspect.js, so have it rely on it directly:
// In `globalFunctions.js`
const aspect = require("./aspect.js");
module.exports.getHumanData = function(){
return "MR. " + aspect.getAspect();
};
Assuming there are no cycles, that'll work.
At a larger level: There may be no reason to have globalVars.Modules at all. A module is only loaded once (normally), so rather than globalVars.Modules, just have each module directly rely on the module it needs, rather than funnelling it all through a central object. Node.js' module cache is already the central object.
If you don't want globalFunctions.js to rely on aspect.js directly (why not?), then don't copy the aspect property from Modules, use it as of when you need it:
// In `globalFunctions.js`
const {Modules} = require("./globalVars.js");
module.exports.getHumanData = function(){
return "MR. " + Modules.aspect.getAspect();
};
That'll work assuming nothing reassigns Modules (which nothing seems to in the code you've shown). But again, it makes more sense to rely on aspect.js directly if you can.
It's kind of fun to note that this is one of the reasons that modern ESM modules don't use simple assignment semantics like CommonJS ones do. ESM wouldn't help your specific thing, because you're using your own globalVars.Modules object instead of using the module objects, but it solves a problem that people often had with CommonJS modules which, like your problem, was caused by expecting b (an imported value) to be affected when reassigning a (the exported value). The issue people would have with CommonJS happened mostly when there were cycles between two modules (circular dependencies, directly or indirectly). ESM solves this by making the imported binding (b in my example) a live binding to the exported binding (a in my example). This is the only place JavaScript has what you could argue is a form of pass-by-reference (references to variables).
As you've noticed, var { aspect } = globalVars.Modules; copies the current value of globalVars.Modules.aspect to the local variable aspect. It's just alternative syntax for var aspect = globalVars.Modules.aspect.
If you later change the value of globalVars.Modules.aspect to a new object (as opposed to mutating the object that is already there) then the local variable doesn't update.
If you want the most recent value then you need to continue accessing globalVars.Modules.aspect whenever you need it.
Thus far I've worked only with relatively small projects (and mostly alone), but this time I have to collaborate with other programmers... basically because of that I must plan the structure of the website very carefully for the avoidance of spending hours debugging the code.
At this point I suppose doing that in the following manner. I divide my code in modules and store each module in a separate file inside an object (or a function) with a made-up name (lzheA, lzheB, lzheC etc.) to avoid conflicts whether an object with the same name was used in an another piece of code. When the document is loaded, I declare a variable (an object) that I use as a main namespace of the application. Properties of the object are the modules I defined before.
// file BI.lib.js
var lzheA = {
foo: function() {
},
bar: function() {
},
}
// file BI.init.js
function lzheK() {
BI.loadPage();
}
// file BI.loadPage.js
function lzheC() {
var result = document.getElementById('result');
result.innerHTML = "that worked";
}
// and so on
var lzheA,lzheB,lzheD,lzheE,lzheF,lzheG,lzheH,lzheI,lzheJ;
// doing the following when the document is loaded
var BI = {
lib: lzheA,
menu: lzheB,
loadPage: lzheC,
customScripts: lzheD,
_index: lzheE,
_briefs: lzheF,
_shop: lzheG,
_cases: lzheH,
_blog: lzheI,
_contacts: lzheJ,
init: lzheK,
}
BI.init();
https://jsfiddle.net/vwc2og57/2/
The question... is this way of structuring worth living or did I miss something because of lack of experience? Would the made-up names of the modules confuse you regardless of the fact that each one used only twice - while declaring the variable and assigning it to a property?
I consider the namespaces a good option when you want to modularize applications in Javascript. But I declare them in a different way
var myModule = myModule || {}; // This will allow to use the module in other places, declaring more than one specificComponent in other js file for example
myModule.specificComponent = (function(){
// Private things
var myVar = {};
var init = function() {
// Code
};
return {
init: init // Public Stuff
};
})();
If you want to call the init method, you would call it like this
myModule.specificComponent.init();
With this approach, i guarantee that the module will not be overwritten by another declaration in another place, and also I can declare internal components into my namespaces.
Also, the trick of just exposing what you want inside the return block, will make your component safer and you will be encapsulating your code in a pretty way.
Hope it helps
i have seen this code :
var myNet = require ("net");
and in some function:
function foo (x,y) {
var myNewNet = new myNet();
myNewNet.createServer(x,y);
}
why does the code above create a new object? what is the mechanism stands behind that?
one more question, how do i create a static var in node.js, for example a id number that has to be unique.
i came with this option for static variable:
var id =0;
and put it on the global scope, is it ok?
The require statement basically is like an import; it takes an external library and makes it available in your code.
If you ever look in an external module, you will notice that it's just normal node.js js code. It has EXPORT statements in it. Those statements are what gets made available when you require something. Check out http://howtonode.org/creating-custom-modules
There is a GLOBAL keyword in node.js you can use to make something global
GLOBAL.IP_ADDRESS = "..."
As #Raynos says, it's not usually a good idea to do that, so another options is to export a constant from a module, so you can create a module and do
exports.STATIC_CONSTANT = "";
and then once you import the module you can do
var mod = require('mymodule');
mod.STATIC_CONSTANT;
EDIT, to answer you comment, the line
var myNet = require("net")
causes myNet to be whatever the net module exports. It must be exporting a function, so
var newNet = new myNet()
creates a new instance of the net object. From there
myNewNet.createServer()
is just invoking a method on the object you just created.
Digging into Coffeescript I am trying to port my Javascript files to Coffeescript.
Concerning this, I have a question related to the module pattern of Doulgas Crockford (closure binding in order to keep variables "private")
Therefore my question is: What would the aquivalent Coffeescript for the following JS look like:
var test = function () { var hidden = 'open'; return { open: hidden }; }();
Respectively, is there a different / better aproach to this pattern in Coffeescript?
I think the best approach is to literally translate your example into CoffeeScript, with the help of the do keyword (which exists mainly to capture values in loops—see my PragPub article):
test = do ->
hidden = 'open'
open: hidden
This compiles to
var test;
test = (function() {
var hidden;
hidden = 'open';
return {
open: hidden
};
})();
which is identical to your code other than formatting. (The CoffeeScript compiler automatically puts all var declarations at the top of their scope, which makes it easy to determine how a variable is scoped by looking at the JavaScript output.)
I added a section to the coffeescript wiki on how I handle namespacing. It's pretty elegent ( I think )
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/Easy-modules-with-coffeescript
Coffeescript does not have a native module system above that of enclosing all source code files in an anonymous function. However with a bit of simple trickery you can have modules that are the envy of Ruby.
I define my modules like below
#module "foo", ->
#module "bar", ->
class #Amazing
toString: "ain't it"
The implementation of the module helper is
window.module = (name, fn)->
if not #[name]?
this[name] = {}
if not #[name].module?
#[name].module = window.module
fn.apply(this[name], [])
which you can put in another source file if you like. You can then access your classes by namespaced modules
x = new foo.bar.Amazing
wrt to your specific question I think the below jasmine spec answer it using my
module system
#module "test", ->
hidden = 10
#open = hidden
describe "test", ->
it "has no hidden", ->
expect(test.hidden?).toEqual false
it "has open", ->
expect(test.open?).toEqual true
CoffeeScript (or rather, the coffee script) automatically wraps your code within an anonymous function unless you tell it not to.
If you need to publish objects from within that anonymous closure, you can explicitly assign them to the root object; see the start of Underscore.coffee for some pointers.
http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/documentation/docs/underscore.html
If you can write your module in a single class, then compiling the coffeescript with the -b option will naturally create the module pattern you're looking for.
This:
class test
hidden = 'open'
open: hidden
compiles to this:
var test;
test = (function() {
var hidden;
hidden = 'open';
test.prototype.open = hidden;
return test;
})();
which is very nearly what you were looking for.
There are some third party Javascript libraries that have some functionality I would like to use in a Node.js server. (Specifically I want to use a QuadTree javascript library that I found.) But these libraries are just straightforward .js files and not "Node.js libraries".
As such, these libraries don't follow the exports.var_name syntax that Node.js expects for its modules. As far as I understand that means when you do module = require('module_name'); or module = require('./path/to/file.js'); you'll end up with a module with no publicly accessible functions, etc.
My question then is "How do I load an arbitrary javascript file into Node.js such that I can utilize its functionality without having to rewrite it so that it does do exports?"
I'm very new to Node.js so please let me know if there is some glaring hole in my understanding of how it works.
EDIT: Researching into things more and I now see that the module loading pattern that Node.js uses is actually part of a recently developed standard for loading Javascript libraries called CommonJS. It says this right on the module doc page for Node.js, but I missed that until now.
It may end up being that the answer to my question is "wait until your library's authors get around to writing a CommonJS interface or do it your damn self."
Here's what I think is the 'rightest' answer for this situation.
Say you have a script file called quadtree.js.
You should build a custom node_module that has this sort of directory structure...
./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/
./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/quadtree.js
./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/README
./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/some-other-crap.js
./node_modules/quadtree/index.js
Everything in your ./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/ directory are files from your 3rd party library.
Then your ./node_modules/quadtree/index.js file will just load that library from the filesystem and do the work of exporting things properly.
var fs = require('fs');
// Read and eval library
filedata = fs.readFileSync('./node_modules/quadtree/quadtree-lib/quadtree.js','utf8');
eval(filedata);
/* The quadtree.js file defines a class 'QuadTree' which is all we want to export */
exports.QuadTree = QuadTree
Now you can use your quadtree module like any other node module...
var qt = require('quadtree');
qt.QuadTree();
I like this method because there's no need to go changing any of the source code of your 3rd party library--so it's easier to maintain. All you need to do on upgrade is look at their source code and ensure that you are still exporting the proper objects.
There is a much better method than using eval: the vm module.
For example, here is my execfile module, which evaluates the script at path in either context or the global context:
var vm = require("vm");
var fs = require("fs");
module.exports = function(path, context) {
context = context || {};
var data = fs.readFileSync(path);
vm.runInNewContext(data, context, path);
return context;
}
And it can be used like this:
> var execfile = require("execfile");
> // `someGlobal` will be a global variable while the script runs
> var context = execfile("example.js", { someGlobal: 42 });
> // And `getSomeGlobal` defined in the script is available on `context`:
> context.getSomeGlobal()
42
> context.someGlobal = 16
> context.getSomeGlobal()
16
Where example.js contains:
function getSomeGlobal() {
return someGlobal;
}
The big advantage of this method is that you've got complete control over the global variables in the executed script: you can pass in custom globals (via context), and all the globals created by the script will be added to context. Debugging is also easier because syntax errors and the like will be reported with the correct file name.
The simplest way is: eval(require('fs').readFileSync('./path/to/file.js', 'utf8'));
This works great for testing in the interactive shell.
AFAIK, that is indeed how modules must be loaded.
However, instead of tacking all exported functions onto the exports object, you can also tack them onto this (what would otherwise be the global object).
So, if you want to keep the other libraries compatible, you can do this:
this.quadTree = function () {
// the function's code
};
or, when the external library already has its own namespace, e.g. jQuery (not that you can use that in a server-side environment):
this.jQuery = jQuery;
In a non-Node environment, this would resolve to the global object, thus making it a global variable... which it already was. So it shouldn't break anything.
Edit:
James Herdman has a nice writeup about node.js for beginners, which also mentions this.
I'm not sure if I'll actually end up using this because it's a rather hacky solution, but one way around this is to build a little mini-module importer like this...
In the file ./node_modules/vanilla.js:
var fs = require('fs');
exports.require = function(path,names_to_export) {
filedata = fs.readFileSync(path,'utf8');
eval(filedata);
exported_obj = {};
for (i in names_to_export) {
to_eval = 'exported_obj[names_to_export[i]] = '
+ names_to_export[i] + ';'
eval(to_eval);
}
return exported_obj;
}
Then when you want to use your library's functionality you'll need to manually choose which names to export.
So for a library like the file ./lib/mylibrary.js...
function Foo() { //Do something... }
biz = "Blah blah";
var bar = {'baz':'filler'};
When you want to use its functionality in your Node.js code...
var vanilla = require('vanilla');
var mylibrary = vanilla.require('./lib/mylibrary.js',['biz','Foo'])
mylibrary.Foo // <-- this is Foo()
mylibrary.biz // <-- this is "Blah blah"
mylibrary.bar // <-- this is undefined (because we didn't export it)
Don't know how well this would all work in practice though.
I was able to make it work by updating their script, very easily, simply adding module.exports = where appropriate...
For example, I took their file and I copied to './libs/apprise.js'. Then where it starts with
function apprise(string, args, callback){
I assigned the function to module.exports = thus:
module.exports = function(string, args, callback){
Thus I'm able to import the library into my code like this:
window.apprise = require('./libs/apprise.js');
And I was good to go. YMMV, this was with webpack.
A simple include(filename) function with better error messaging (stack, filename etc.) for eval, in case of errors:
var fs = require('fs');
// circumvent nodejs/v8 "bug":
// https://github.com/PythonJS/PythonJS/issues/111
// http://perfectionkills.com/global-eval-what-are-the-options/
// e.g. a "function test() {}" will be undefined, but "test = function() {}" will exist
var globalEval = (function() {
var isIndirectEvalGlobal = (function(original, Object) {
try {
// Does `Object` resolve to a local variable, or to a global, built-in `Object`,
// reference to which we passed as a first argument?
return (1, eval)('Object') === original;
} catch (err) {
// if indirect eval errors out (as allowed per ES3), then just bail out with `false`
return false;
}
})(Object, 123);
if (isIndirectEvalGlobal) {
// if indirect eval executes code globally, use it
return function(expression) {
return (1, eval)(expression);
};
} else if (typeof window.execScript !== 'undefined') {
// if `window.execScript exists`, use it
return function(expression) {
return window.execScript(expression);
};
}
// otherwise, globalEval is `undefined` since nothing is returned
})();
function include(filename) {
file_contents = fs.readFileSync(filename, "utf8");
try {
//console.log(file_contents);
globalEval(file_contents);
} catch (e) {
e.fileName = filename;
keys = ["columnNumber", "fileName", "lineNumber", "message", "name", "stack"]
for (key in keys) {
k = keys[key];
console.log(k, " = ", e[k])
}
fo = e;
//throw new Error("include failed");
}
}
But it even gets dirtier with nodejs: you need to specify this:
export NODE_MODULE_CONTEXTS=1
nodejs tmp.js
Otherwise you cannot use global variables in files included with include(...).